Kerala High Court
Sathyprakash @ Prakasan vs K.K.Leela @ Leena on 23 September, 2021
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
RPFC NO. 188 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2020 IN MC 4/2017 OF FAMILY
COURT,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SATHYPRAKASH @ PRAKASAN,
(CORRECT NAME IS SATHYAPRAKASH), AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O (LATE) KRISHNAN NAIR, THARAYIL (HOUSE),
VALLIKKUNNU NORTH, KOTTAKADAVU, ANARANGADI,
VALLIKKUNNU (POST) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 314.
BY ADV JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 K.K.LEELA @ LEENA,
AGED 55 YEARS,
D/O KUTTAYI, KANIYAMKUNNUMMAL(HOUSE) MAYANAD (POST),
CHELAVOOR AMSAM, MAYANAD DESAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
PIN-673 008.
2 K.K.VISHNU, (MENTALLY DISABLED)
AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O SATHYAPRAKASH, KANIYAMKUNNUMMAL(HOUSE), MAYANAD
(POST), CHELAVOOR AMSAM, MAYANAD DESAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN-673 008. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN K.K.LEELA @ LEENA
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAAM, PIN-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M.P.PRASANTH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(F.C.)No.188 of 2021
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021 This revision is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.4/2017. By virtue of the impugned order, the Family Court has modified the original order passed in M.C.No.284/2002 and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the 2 nd petitioner.
2. The parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent and the petitioners in accordance with their status in the M.C.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has filed counter statement denying the paternity of the child and was prepared to undergo DNA examination. But without adverting to that factum, the court below has passed the impugned order modifying the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.6,000/-.
R.P.(F.C.)No.188 of 2021-:3:-
4. According to the learned counsel, the respondent is a senior citizen and is not in a position to pay the modified sum to the 2nd petitioner.
5. It is noticed from the impugned order that the respondent had filed counter statement denying the allegations in the M.C. but failed to participate in the trial. True that he had contended that he is a senior citizen without any source of income.
6. Going by the cause title of M.C. No.4/2017, this Court has noticed that the 2nd petitioner is a mentally insane person. Therefore, there is no bar for him to obtain monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent evenafter attainment of age of majority. M.C.No.284/2002 was originally filed seeking monthly maintenance allowance. It was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay Rs.750/- to the 2nd petitioner monthly. The said order was not challenged by the respondent and the finding that the respondent is liable to maintain the 2nd petitioner has become final. Therefore, the respondent cannot take the stand now that he is not the father of the 2nd petitioner and therefore, is not liable to pay monthly maintenance allowance under Section 125 R.P.(F.C.)No.188 of 2021 -:4:- Cr.P.C in an application filed seeking to modify the monthly maintenance allowance that was ordered about 19 years back.
7. During the period from 2002 to 2021, the cost of living has a considerable increase and therefore, Rs.6,000/- now stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance in modification of the originally directed sum, undoubtedly is just and reasonable.
For the reasons, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE
MJL
R.P.(F.C.)No.188 of 2021
-:5:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT IN MC NO 4/2017 ON THE
FILES OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 15.6.2017 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL TRUE COPY P A TO JUDGE